1  »*■■-  f  .*.  •  -^^^'^^i-Vr^  '-t^  n»i™ "W«35ff^,  ^. 


1 


^  7 


1 


MAS2  ER 

ATIVE 

91-80229 


MICROFILMED  1991 
COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARIES/NEW  YORK 


as  part  of  the 
Foundations  of  Western  Civilization  Preservation  Project" 


Funded  by  the 
NATIONAL  ENDOWMENT  FOR  THE  HUMANITIES 


Reproductions  may  not  be  made  without  permission  from 

Columbia  University  Library 


COPYRIGHT  STATEMENT 

The  copyright  law  of  the  United  States  --  Title  17,  United 
States  Code  ~  concerns  the  making  ^f  photocopies  or  other 
reproductions  of  copyrighted  material  . 


r^ 


•%   * 


4 


J. 
1 


•         1 


JL  X^  A  W  V 


'^  i  brary  reserves  the  right  to  refuse  to 
its  judgement,  fulfillment  of  the  order 
"^  the  copyright  law. 


A  UTHOR 


SA 


> 


I 


,.-f 


'  I  i  i   f -^  • 


SD 
r 


J 


ONORAB 


W 


■*     t"  '    H 


11 


,'  :»"■  jfc-TrfS'^,-:  .a; 


*■'!  ,■ 


p 


jS  4 


dubl 

mmm/    \mJ    mmJf  L»k 

/)  4  TF  • 

18 


Restrictions  on  Use: 


COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARIES 
PRESERVATION  DEPARTMENT 

I3II3LIOGRAPHIC  MICROPORM  TARGET 


Master  Negative  it 


Original  Material  as  Filmed  -  Existing  Bibliographic  Record 


"Ul  boitcK   cltr'vtTe.d...in... Dublin... -tht 


v^^  ftbruB-ra,\6a9,     bt-nq    ^Kt   second   o«.na3 
m.tVno     or+We    Btun^wfcW    consV.^uV^onsl    club 

Dublin  \?>?."5. 


*^^.J 


No.   3     ofa  volume  of  pamphlets. 


^« 


TECHNICAL  MICROFORM  DATA 

FILM     SIZE: 3a^49-^__  REDUCTION     RATIO: /a 

IMA^E  PLACEMENT:    lA  N^    IB    III3  j 

DAfE     FILMED: Z__9iLL3J___     INITIALS__^_^J?. 

HLMEDBY:    RESEARCH  PUDLICATIONS.  INC  WOODDRIDGE.  CT 


'•*  "i*"*- 


ljHl,*J5? V ti 7' s- ^w^ *.,'??* ^^'  *3»f »>pv ^^'" .'?«s»  •_?. 


■V^" 


E 


Association  for  Information  and  Image  Management 

1 1 00  Wayne  Avenue.  Suite  1 1 00 
Silver  Spring,  Maryland  20910 

301/587-8202 


Centimeter 

1         2         3 

L 


Mil 


4 


iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiimiiiiimi 


# 


ill 


6         7        8         9 

iiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiii 


10   11 

iiiiliiiiliii 


12       13       14       15    mm 

iiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiii 


T 


T 


I 


TTT 


I   I   I   I  I   I   I   I 


I   I   I 


T 


1 


Inches 


.0 


I.I 


1.25 


1^  IIIlM 
1^ 


2.5 


|56          3.2 

~  t  j 

36 

2.2 

11 

2.0 

1.8 

1.4 

1.6 

MfiNUFfiCTURED   TO   fillM   STflNDPRDS 
BY   APPLIED   IMRGE,     INC. 


Ho.^. 


SPEECH 


I 


or  THE 


RIGHT  HONORABLE  WILLIAM  SAURIN 


DELIVERED   AT 


THE  ROTUNDA; 


IX  THE  C[TY  OF  DUBLIN, 


ON   THURSDAY,   THE    19th    FRBRI'ATIV,    1829; 


BEING   THE 


SECOND  GENERAL  MEETING 


OF   THE 


BRUNSWICK 


CONSTITUTIONAL  CLUB  OF  IRELAND. 


DUBLIN  : 


PRINTED  BY  ORDER  OF  THE  CLUB, 


GEORGE     WALKER. 
1829. 


1 


SPEECH 


•  r  rtfK 


Rir.HT  HONORABLE  WILLIAM  SAUUIN, 


^.  ^.  <5r<?. 


My  Lord  and  Gentlemen, 

I  can  make  no  return  for  the  warm  expres- 
sion of  regard  which  I  have  experienced  from 
you.  I  can  only  assure  you,  that  if  the  course 
which  I  have  pursued  through  life  has  de- 
served your  approbation,  I  shall  persevere  in 
it  to  the  end.  I  shall  abstain  from  all  expres- 
sions calculated  to  increase  the  warmth  of  the 
feelings  which  the  present  occasion  has  so 
naturally  excited.  I  cannot  however  but 
honour  and  respect  the  warmth  of  your  feel, 
ings.  It  arises  from  the  veneration  and  the 
attachment  which  you  entertain  for  the  happy 
system  of  Laws  and  Government  under  which 
tliese  countries  have  so  long,  and  so  pre-emi- 
nently flourished.  I  cordially  concur  in  ail  the 
resolutions  which  have  this  day  been  adopted, 
and  in  none  more  than  that  which  expresses  the 
feelings  of  astonisliment  and  dismay  with  which 
we  learned  the  proposition  that  has  l>een  sub- 
mitted to  Parliament  by  the  IVIinisters  of  tlic 
Crown.  I  can  pay  no  regard  to  any  qualification 
that  may  be  intended  to  accom})any  the  mea, 
sure  propouude<l,  the  measure  itself  being 
in  my  judgment,  a  revolution  in  the  Govern- 
itient — to    which,   upon    no   terms   whatever. 


,^^-' 


can  I  be  reconciled  ; — a  measure,  with  res. 
pect  to  which,  I  was  under  the  fullest  impres. 
sion  that  the  Noble  and  Illustrious  Duke  at 
the  head  of  his  iVIajesty's  Government,  and  my 
Right  Honourable  and  much  respected  and 
regarded  friend,  the  Chief  Secretary  for  the 
Home  Department,  entertained  opinions  as 
irrevocable  as  my  own.  And  I  do  feel  the 
greatest  concern,  that  a  duty  which  results 
from  the  long-formed  opinions  I  have  enter- 
tained upon  this  subject  urges  me  to  stand 
up  in  opposition  to  the  measure.  I  must  leave 
It  to  them  to  explain  the  reasons  on  which  a 
resolution  so  sudden  and  unexpected  has  been 
formed ;  but  so  far,  I  must  confess,  that  to  me 
they  are  unintelligible. 

The  measure  now  proposed  of  admitting  our 
Roman  Catholic  fellow-subjects  to  the  exercise 
of  the  Executive  and  Legislative  functions  of  the 
State  did  not,  in  its  origin,  spring  from  the  sen- 
timents, much  less  from  the  privations,  or  the 
alleged  wrongs  of  that  body.  It  was,  with  its 
concomitant  measure  called  Parliamentary 
Reform,  the  offspring  of  that  spirit,  and  those 
principles  of  democracy  and  revolution,  which, 
for  the  last  forty  years,  have  been  assailing, 
and  shaking  to  its  centre,  the  British  Constitu- 
tion. They  were  the  suggestions  and  the 
artifice  used  by  the  United  Irishmen,  to  seduce 
the  people  of  this  country  from  their  attach- 
ment to  their  lawful  Government,  and  to 
engage  them  in  the  conspiracy  then  formed  to 
subvert  it.  T  have  been  attentive  to  this  mea- 
sure from  its  commencement,  and  bound  by 
every  principle  of  duty  to  examine  and  disco- 
ver, if  (I  could,)  whether  there  was  any  sound 
political  principle,  or  any  sufficient  reason  why 
we  shoidd  now  make  a  revolution  in  our  settled 


Government  ;  and  I  oppose  to  it  the  resolution 
which  you  have  this  day  adopted,  "  That  the 
measure  contemplated  is  uncalled  for  by  any 
necessity,  and  therefore  unjustifiable  upon  any 
sound  political  principle  which  has  hitherto 
directed  the  policy  of  civilized  nations" — in 
which  resolution  I  do  most  fully  concur. 

It  is  an  axiom  in  political  science,  which  the 
wisest  and  ablest  men  have  deduced  from  the  ex- 
perience of  ages,  that  when  a  Government  is  es- 
tablished and  settled — when  men's  minds  are 
reconciled  to  it — when  it  has  become  an  object 
of  veneration  and  attachment,  it  ought  not  to 
undergo  alteration  in  the  minutest  particular, 
except  on  tlie  ground  of  absolute  necessity. — 
That  necessity  should  be,  that  the  Government 
utterly  fails  to  fulfil  the  object  of  its  institution. 
Such,  and  so  great  is  the  danger  of  unsettling 
mens'  minds  on  the  subject  of  the  Government 
under  which  they  have  been  accustomed  to 
live,  and  so  difficult  the  task  of  forming  or 
framing  another,  in    which  men  will  agree. 

I  oppose  this  measure  as  a  revolutionaiy 
measure — a  measure  flowing  out  of  the  spirit 
and  principles  of  democracy.  There  is,  and 
has  been,  a  party  in  this  country,  having  for 
their  object  the  utter  subversion  of  the  Bri- 
tish Constitution,  and  to  establish  in  its 
place,  a  Constitution  of  Government  on  the 
basis  of  equality  of  political  rights,  on  the 
model  of  the  Government  of  theUnited  States 
of  America — a  Government  founded  in  dia- 
metrical opposition  and  contrast  to  that  of 
Great  Britain. 


And  here  let  me,  for  a  moment,  point 
your  attention  to  the  distinction  which  ex- 
ists    between      the*  two     Governments,      for 


(I 


I  oannot  but  triw^e  this  rovclutioiwry  mo^urc 
to   the   principles   on    which   the  Government 
of  the  United  States  is  fo-anded.     Tlie  principle 
of  that  Constitution  is  equality  of  political  rights 
to  all  people ;  every  office  in  the  state  is  open 
alike     to    every    citizen  ;     representation     is 
theri?  founded  on  universal  suilVage  ;  under  that 
Constitution  of  Government,  tht^e  is  not,  nor 
could     there    be    a   National    Religion,     nor 
an   Established   Church.     Such  an  institution 
would   violate   the    principle    of    equality    ot 
political  rights,  the  basis  of  that  Constitution, 
under  which  all  power  flows  from  the  people. 
Look,  my  Lord,  to  the    British  Constitution  ; 
by  that  Constitution  the   executive  authority 
of  the  State,  is  vested  by   rivM   hereditary, 
in  one  individual  of  one  family,  and  Irom  that 
office  every  other  individual  is  interdicted.   No 
rank,  no  services,  no  talents,  entitle  any  person, 
to  aspire  to  tliat  office.  The  next  branch  of  the 
British  Constitution  Is  the  House  of  Peers,  Le- 
gislators and  Judges,  by  hereditaiy  right,  and 
tn  total  independence  of  the  people.     The  only 
branchof  the  Legislature  in  which  the  people  ap- 
peartoliuveany  share,  is  the  House  of  Commons; 
but      according      to     the     principles    of     our 
Constitution,  that  assembly   never   was    a  i-e- 
presentation    of    the    people,     but    a    repre- 
sentation   of  the    property    and    intelligence 
of  the  country. 

It  is  nov/  forty  years  since  a  conf^piracy  was 
formed  in  this  country,  under  the  name  of 
United  Irishmen,  for  'the  purpose  of  sub- 
verting the  British  Constitution,  and  esta- 
biishing  on  its  ruins,  a  Government,  having 
for  its  tbundatlon,  the  principle  of  equality 
of  political  rights  on  which  that  of  Ame- 
rica   is     based,     imd     which     is     utterly   ia- 


compatible  wiUi  the  principles  of  our  Con- 
stltution.  To  forward  the  ends  of  that  con- 
spiracy, the  two  measures  which  have  so 
long  agitated  the  country,  under  the  specioUvS 
name  of  Parliamentary  Reform,  and  the  still 
more  preposterous  denomination  of  Catholic 
Emancipation  were  first  adopted.  Such  were 
the  engines  made  use  of  to  engage  the  people, 
and  the  Roman  Catholics,  (the  principal  objects 
of  the  enterprize,)  in  the  revolutionary  mea- 
sures then  contemplated.  Accordingly,  you  will 
trace  the  arguments  used  by  the  United  Irish- 
men in  the  address  to  the  Roman  Catholics 
by  Theobald  Wolfe  Tone — you  will  trace  these 
in  the  arguments  of  those  who  have  since  then 
advocated  these  measures,  for  the  pui-pose  of 
supplanting  the  Ministry  to  which  they  were 
opposed. 

I  have  been  looking  on  for  many  y^ears,  and 
Irave  observed  theuses  made  of  these  instruments 
of  delusion,  for  the  purpose  of  exciting  disaffec- 
tion and  discontent  among  the  people  of  this 
country;    and  they  have  to  a  great  degi-ee  suc- 
ceeded.    The  Roman  Catholics  were  told,  that 
while  living  under  a  Constitution,   the  freeest, 
and  mildest   in  the  world,  and  in   the  bene- 
fits  of  which  tliey  participated   equally   with 
theirProtestantfellow-subjects-they  wereslaves 
and    outlaws.     I   solemnly    declare,    if  I    did 
believe  that  the  Constitution  under  which  we 
live  denied  to  the  Roman  Catholics  of  the  em- 
pire    the     benefits    and  blessings  of  its  free 
and   happy  Government — if  I   did   not  know 
that     they     enjoyed     the     same      protection 
by   Magna   Charta,    the    Bill   of  Rights,   the 
Habeas  Corpus  Act,  and  Trial  by   Jury,    as  I 
myselfr-if  I  thought   the    Constitution    v/ere 
guilty  of  depriving,  not  five  millions,  but   one 
Roman  Catholic,  of  w4iat  he  was  entitlod  to,  as 


/ 


^ 


8 


the  free  subjeet  of  a  free  State,  I,  myself,  would 
be  the  foremost  to  place  my  hand  on  that 
guilty  Constitution  which  had  done  him  wrong. 

But  this  is  the  jargon  of  denn  luey,  and  the 
artilBces  of  a  party  which  tf^nk  i  ;  this  measure 
from  the  United  IrKiHuen.  Ihey,  in  error, 
(as  I  think  they  were,)  in  seeking  to  establish  a 
Constitution  i  I.  vv»rnment  in  this  country  on 
the  basis  of  puiiiiLdi  equuiiiy,  were  at  least  in- 
telligible and  consistent — many  amongst  them 
were  honest  and  sincere  converts  to  the 
principle  of  democracy.  Their  object  was  to 
subvert  the  Constitution  of  the  land  ;  and 
the  measure.*^  they  urged  were  not  only 
consistent,  but  inseparable  pai'ts  of  the  system 
which  it  was  their  avowed  object  to  intro- 
duce and  establish — that  is  to  put  the  princi- 
ple of  representation  on  a  new  basis,  that 
of  universal  suffrage,  and  to  abolish  the 
Ecclesiastical  establishment,  and  the  national 
religion,  with  the  rest  of  our  Constitution. — 
They  told  us  that  they  hated  the  system  of  here- 
ditary sovereignty  and  hereditary  legislation, 
that  they  detested  our  Constitution,  and  would 
have  in  its  stead  that  of  America.  In  all  this 
they  were  intelligible  and  consistent— on  this 
subject  men  might  have  reasonably  differed,  I 
am  not  quarrelling  with  democracy ;  I  am  not 
assailing  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States. 
Those  who  wish  to  live  within  its  sphere,  may 
do  so  if  they  desire:  but  it  is  my  decided  and 
irrevocable  opinion,  that  such  a  Constitution  is 
unfitted  and  unsuitable  to  an  Empire  like  ours, 
advanced  in  arts,  wealth  and  luxury.  The  same 
Jacobin  principles  were  derived  from  the  same 
source.  If  they  succeeded  here,  they  would  lead 
as  they  did  in  France  to  anarchy,  while  their  influ- 
ence continued  to  operate;  but  their  day  would 
be  short,  and  they  would  terminate  here,  as  they 


w 


xlid  there,  in  the  despotism  of  an  individual.  This 
is  the  view  I  have  taken  of  the  subject.  I  saw 
its  commencement  forty  years  ago.  It  began  bj 
that  contest  and  that  struggle,  in  which,  not  only 
these  countries,  but  all  Europe  has  been  engaged 
for  the  last  forty  years — the  contest  between 
Monarchy  and  Democracy.  In  these  countries — 
between  the  British  Constitution  and  that  of  the 
United  States  of  America. 

Unfortunately  for  the  country,  and  indeed 
for  themselves,  about  the  same  period  a  party 
was  systematically  formed  in  the  Irish  Par- 
liament in  connexion  with  the  British  oppo- 
sition to  the  administration  of  Mr.  Pitt;  and 
the  two  republican  measures  of  the  United 
Irishmen  were  inconsiderately  adopted  by  that 
party  as  measures  of  opposition  to  the  Government. 
That  party  was  largely  recruited  from  the  profes- 
sion of  which  I  am  a  member,  by  young  men  more 
distinguished  for  their  talents  and  their  eloquence 
than  for  their  knowledge  or  retlection,  and  who 
to  advance  themselves  in  their  profession  and  in 
the  world,  ranged  themselves  under  the  standard 
of  opposition  to  the  Government,  and  misemployed 
their  talent  and  perverted  their  eloquence  in  the 
support  of  these  two  Revolutionary  Republican 
measures,  which  have,  for  the  last  forty  years, 
disturbed  the  peace  of  the  country,  impeded  its 
prosperity,  and  divided  its  people.  In  supporting 
these  measures  they  inculcated  the  false  doctrines 
which  they  had  borrowed  from  the  United  Irish- 
men, the  principles  of  democracy  which  that 
conspiracy  had  espoused. 

I  will  advert  shortly  to  the  fake  argu- 
ments and  unfounded  principles  on  which 
this  measure  has  been  advocated.  The  Ro- 
man Catholics  were  told,  that  by  the  Bri- 
tish Constitution  they  were  denied  their  natural 


10 


II 


ainl  itnprescriptiible  ri^ht^;  iluii  tluit  Constitu- 
tion was  a  base  monopoly,  and  that  their  condition 
in  the  State  was  that  of  slaves  and  outlaws.  iNow, 
I  ask,  in  the  name  of  common  sense  if  there  be  a 
syllable  of  truth  in  this  ?  It  is  mere  inflammatory 
language.  Where  are  the  rii^hts  denied  to  the 
Roman  Catholic?  Is  he  not  equally  with  the 
l^otestant  protected  in  the  enjoyment  of  those 
rights  and  privileges,  for  the  maintenance  of 
which  civil  4::overnments  were  established,  and 
which  no  «overnment  ever  yet  instituted  has 
heeu  so  anxious  to  preserve  as  the  Hritish 
^'onstitution  ? 

In  the  view  v»hich  I  am  takin^r  of  this  subject,  ^ 

Mould  call  upon  the  Roman  Catholics  of  Ireland  to 

join  with  me  in  resisting^  this  revolutionarv  system, 

which  will  lead  to  democracv,  to  the  subversion  of 

all  religion,  and  to  the  destruction  of  every  part  of 

the  Constitutk>n.     I  would  tell  them  that  while 

Jacobins    are  inculcating  on    their  minds,  that 

they  are  deprived  of  their  natural  rights,  they 

are  advancing  allegations  destitute  of  foundation. 

The  right.s  of  man  in  a  natural  state,  are  those 

which  secure  to   him  the  protection  of  his  life, 

property,    and    character.     But    I  t<'ll  him,   at 

the    same    time,    that    he    has     no    rii>ht      to 

ofiir^? — olTice     does    not    exist     in    the     natural 

state;    tluTefore     th<Te  is   no    natural   rii>ht    in 

anv  man    to  office.       Those    situations   are    the 

creation  of  the  Civil    State,  for   the  benefit  of 

the    State   at   large,    and    not    for   the    benefit 

or    gratification,    of    those    who     may     obtain 

them.     When  the  Roman   Catholic  is  told,  you 

liave  a  right  to  office — I  ask,  is  it  a  natural  or  a 

civil  ri^ht  ?     Natural  Yizhi  it  is  not — civil  ri^rht  it 

cannot   be,  unless    it  be  conferred  by  the  law  of 

the    State.     The  Roman  Catholics  are  misled — 

their  minds  are  poisoned   when    they    are  told 

by  the  incendiaries  who  are   deluding  them,  that 


I 


they  are  deprived  of  their  rights.  Civil 
offices  and  Seats  in  Parliament  are  created  bv  the 
state  for  the  public  benefit.  The  law  denies  to 
all  Protestants  as  well  as  Catholics  the  right  to 
office  and  to  seats  in  Parliament.  The  law  creates 
and  qualifies.  The  principles  of  our  Constitution 
deny  any  such  right.  Those  who  have  been  in- 
culcating upon  Catholics,  that  they  are  deprived 
of  their  rights  because  they  cannot  fill  office 
or  seats  in  Parliament,  tell  them  that  which  is 
utterly  politically  false. 

In  every  state  in  which  a  Civil  Government 
is  established,  the  great  object  of  the  law, 
as  far  as  human  laws  can  provide,  Ls,  that  those 
offices  and  places  created  for  the  public  benefit 
and  the  public  service,  and  not  of  the  indi- 
viduals by  whom  they  are  to  be  tilled,  should, 
if  possible,  be  filled  by  the  persons  in  the  state, 
most  fitted  and  best  qualified  to  fill  them.  And 
such  is  the  provision,  and  such  the  policy  of 
our  laws  and  Constitution,  bv  which  whole 
classes,  and  the  great  majority  of  the  people, 
are  excluded  from  those  offices  and  places,  to 
which  the  Sovereign  Power  of  the  state  is 
entrusted.  Thus,  under  the  British  Constitution, 
women  are  excluded  from  all  those  offic<3s,  from 
which  the  Roman  CatholicvS  are  excluded.  And 
why  ? — because  the  law  considers  men  more 
iiligible.  Minors  are  excluded,  because  adults 
are  considered  better  qualified.  Every  man 
who  has  not  a  real  estate  of  £'300  a-year  is 
also  excluded — and  why  ? — because  the  man 
who  has  such  estate  is  considered  to  be  better 
qualified.  This  exclusion,  or  rather  the  prefe- 
rence which  the  law  establishes  in  favour  of  the 
better  qualified,  was  never  before  asserted  to 
be  injustice  to  the  class  postponed,  nor  to  be 
intended   as  a  stigma,  or  disgrace. 


12 


In  myearly  days  this  country  was  called  the  land 
of  liberty ;  and  it  was  the  pride  and  boast  of  every 
constitutional  subject,  that  not  only  the  native 
was  free,  but  the  Negro  slave  who  set  his  foot 
upon  her  shores  was  enfranchised.  But  the 
inarch  of  intellect  has  sbice  discovered  that  to 
be  free,  is  to  exercise  the  power  of  Government. 
There  was  then  a  standard  of  constitutional 
opinion — by  it  every  thing  was  tried,  and  con- 
firmed, or  rejected.  Now  that  standard  must 
be  cast  away,  and  we  must  launch  the  vessel 
of  the  state  on  the  wide  sea  of  uncertainty,  with- 
out a  pilot  to  guide,  or  a  helm  to  direct  her. 
Need  I  advert  to  the  many  laws  on  the  statute 
book,  by  which  classes  of  our  fellow-subjects  are 
disqualified  from  office  and  seats  in  Parliament. 
By  one  law,  every  person  under  twenty-one  years 
is  excluded  from  the  House  of  Commons,  on 
the  principle  that  the  law  considers  an  adult 
better  qualified  ;  and  will  any  man  say  that  those 
so  disqualified  are  to  be  considered  as  slaves 
and  out-laws  ?  By  another  act,  a  century  in 
existence,  no  man  can  sit  in  Parliament  unless  he 
possess  a  real  estate  of  three  hundred  pounds 
a-year,  nor  represent  a  county,  unless  he  have 
property  to  twice  that  amount.  That  was  a  law, 
which  disqualified  from  seats  in  Parliament  the 
great  mass  of  the  community. 

These  exclusions  are  founded  on  the  prin- 
ciple that  offices  of  state  are  not  made  for 
men,  but  that  men  the  best  qualified  are  to 
be  sought  for  to  fill  them.  It  is  a  delusion 
to  suppose  that  offices  were  created,  or  that 
seats  in  Parliament  were  intended  as  prizes 
for  political  adventurers,  or  to  be  trafficked  upon 
as  tne  means  of  advancement  in  life.  These  are 
false  views.  Men  may,  it  is  true,  get  into  Par- 
liament, and  thereby  advance  their  fortunes  ;  but 
it  was  never  intended  as  a  profession. 


13 


I  come  then  to  the  exclusion  of  Roman  Catholics 
from  Parliament,  and  offices  of  the  State.  And  why 
are  they  so  excluded  ?  The  Sovereign  Power  of 
the  State  is  invested  in  the  King,  Lords,  and  Com- 
mons who  comprise  not  more  than  twelve  hun- 
dred individuals  out  of  twenty  millions.  Are  the 
remaining  nineteen  millions  nine  hundred  and 
ninety-eight  thousand  in  a  state  of  outlawry  and 
slavery,  because  of  their  exclusion  ? — These 
delusions  have  no  foundation  either  in  political 
reason  or  political  truth,  they  are,  however,  the 
cause  that  our  constitution,  which  was,  as  we 
thought,  deliberately  and  conclusively  settled  in 
1688,  is  now  in  danger  of  another  revolution.  It 
was  then  settled—on  the  principle  that  in  the  dis- 
tribution of  the  offices  of  State,  those  should  be  se- 
lected who  were  best  qualified  to  till  them — 
it  was  then  settled,  that  those  in  whom 
the  Government  of  the  State  should  be 
vested,  should  be  Protestant  and  not  Roman 
Catholic  ?  My  Lord,  that  provision  was  not,  as 
has  been  falsely  and  cruelly  asserted,  and  mis- 
chievously inculcated  on  the  minds  of  Roman 
Catholics,  intended  as  a  stain  upon  their  charac- 
ter or  their  religion,  nor  as  a  slur  upon  their 
ability,  or  integrity. 

It  has  ever  been  part  of  the  British  Constitution, 
unlike  the  American,  to  have  a  national  religion 
and  an  Established  Church — an  establisment  as 
old  as  the  Constitution  itself — an  establishment  of 
high  rank,  great  possessions,  sharing  in  the 
legislative,  and  administering  a  great  portion  of 
the  executive ;  and  speaking  politically  of  that 
establishment,  it  is  undoubtedly  one  of  the 
great  bulwarks  of  the  hereditary  monarchy. 
About  three  hundred  years  since,  a  great 
Revolution  took  place  in  the  national  religion, 
and  the  ecclesiastical  establishments  of  the  State, 
from  which  resulted  diirerences  of  opinions  of  the 


\) 


u 

most  scrioUvQ  (loscription.     Proto^f^nts  dissented 
from    the    reliuion    established    at   that  period. 
Ihey  dissented  from  the  relip:ion  professed  by 
their  Roman  Catholic  fellow-subjects  and  rejected 
that  Church  to  which  the  Roman  Catholics  ad- 
hered^ 1    will  admit,  conscientiously  and   faith- 
fully;   but    those  who  diiVered    from  them,  as 
conscientiously   believed  the   doctrines  of  then* 
Church  to  be  erroneous,    and  the  political  cha- 
racter   and  constitution  of  it,  and    the  Institu- 
tions appertaining-  to  it,  to  be  incompatible  with 
the  independence  of  the  Crown,  or  the  liberties 
of  the  people.       What  was  the  consequence? 
The   majority    of    the  people    of    this    United 
Kingdom,  in     population    more    than    two     to 
one,    in    rank,     property,     and     education,    at 
h  ast  one    hundred    to    one,    rejected    that    re- 
lio:ion    from    which    they    dissented,    and   esta- 
blished the  Protestant  religion  in  its  stead.    The 
minority  adhered  with  fidelity  to  their  religion, 
but  let  it  be  recollected  that  Protestants  with 
equal  sincerity  dis^:ented.     It  was  not  for  twenty 
Tears  after  this  revolution  had  occurred,  that  any 
alteration  took  place  in  the  civil  constitution  of 
the  government ;  nothing  was  done  theoretically, 
or  under  the  intluence  of  religious  feeling. 

In  the  first  year  of  the  reign  of  Queen  Elizabeth, 
the  policy  commenced  of  giving  a  preference  to 
Protestants  by  a  Test,  the  effect  of  which  was 
to  exclude  Roman  Catholics  from  all  oHices  in 
the  State  derived  from  the  Crown,  in  the  5th 
year  of  Elizabeth,  the  same  Test  was  extended 
to  the  members  of  the  House  of  Commons.  That 
policy  from  its  commencement  was  never  relaxed, 
but  gradually  extended.  In  the  13th  Charles  II. 
it  wa^^  extended  to  corporate  offices.  In  the  25th 
Charles  II.  the  Sacramental  Test  was  superadded 
and  required  as  a  qualification  for  all  offices  in 
the  State.     It  so  rcmtiined  until  the  30th  Obarlos 


i 


•;gfe 


15 


II.  when  it  was  extended  to  the  House  of  Lords, 
though  its  members  sat  there  by  hereditary  right. 
So  things  remained  until  the  effort  made  by  that* 
unfortunate  King,  v/hose  history  has  been  so  Avell 
detailed  by  my  Learned   Friend,  (Mr,   Serjeant 
Lefroy,)  who,  endeavouring  taoverturn  the  estab- 
lished religion,  and  liberties  of  the  nation,  was  by 
the  nation  expelled  from  the  Throne,  and  that  po- 
licy which  had  commenced  in  the  iirst  year  of 
Queen  Elizabeth,andhadbeengradually  extended 
from  that  period,  was  then  reviewed,  perfected,  and 
completed,  by  the  exclusion  of  Roman  Catholics 
from  the  Crown,  not  merely  by  a  Test,  but  by 
express    and    positive    enactment.     For    it  is  a 
prominent  part  of  t>ur  great  Constitutional  Char- 
ter, that  the  King  on  the  Throne,  if  he  shall  be 
a  Papist,  or  even  marry  a  Papist,  shall  forfeit  his 
Crown,  and  his  subjects  be  therel)y  absolved  from 
their  oaths  of  allegiance.     We  have  heard  advo- 
cates    in     Parliament     for    this     revolutionary 
measure,     treat   the    constitutional     settlement 
of    1688,    as     the     ebullition     of    a     moment. 
Never  was  a  Constitution  more  fully  considered 
or   deliberately  settled,  and  by  men  of  singular 
ability   and   knowledge,    particularly  the  know- 
ledge of  the  Laws  and  Coisstitution  of  the  Coun- 
try.   It  was  the  completion  and  the  consummation 
of  that  policy   which  had  commenced  more  than 
a  century  before,  and  v/hichwas  then  completed, 
by  the  exclusion  of  Roman  Catholics  from  every 
j)art  of  the  Government,  and  the   whole  of  the 
Executive  and    Legislative  power  of  the  State 
vested  exclusively  in    Protestants.     Under   tliut 
Constitution   so  settled,   and   by  such  men,  we 
have  since  lived  and  llourished,  for  a  period  of  a 
hundred    and   forty   years.     No    man   who   has 
advocated  this  measure  in  Parliament,    has  ven- 
tured to  say,  that   the  Constitution  as  then   .set- 
tled has  failed  to  aniwer  the  end  and  purposes  of 
its  instittition. 


A 


16 


And  therefore,  my  Lord,  I  will  my  in  the 
words  of  the  resolution,  '*  that  the  measure  con- 
templated is  uncalled  for  by  any  necessity,  and 
unjustiliable  by  any  sound   political  principle." 

Not  only,  my  Lord,  is  there  no  necessity  for 
the  proposed  measure,  but  after  the  most  anxi- 
ous consideration  which  I  have  bestowed  upon 
the  subject  for  a  period  of  thirty  years,  I  can  see 
no  reason,  much  less  discover  a  principle,  why 
we  should  depart  from  this  Constitution.  If  it  be 
said  it  is  because  that  Constitution  deprives 
Roman  Catholics  of  their  rijj:hts,  I  have  already 
adverted  to  that  subject ;  and  now  repeat,  that 
no  subject  of  the  realm,  Protestant  or  Roman 
Catholic,  has  any  right  to  the  Executive  or  Legis- 
lative offices  of \he  State;  even  those  who  being 
qualified  according  to  law,  are  duly  appointed 
to  those  offices,  do  not  take  or  hold  them  as  a 
rii^ht  or  a  privilege  conferred  on  them  for  their 
personal  benefit  or  gratification  ;  but  in  the  con- 
templation of  the  law  and  the  Constitution,  as  an 
obligation  and  a  duty  imposed  upon  them  for  th^- 
benefit  and  service  of  the  public. 

The  object  in  the  view  which  I  am  taking  of 
this  subject,  is  not  to  divide,  but  to  reconcile 
us.  Many  of  the  Roman  Catholics  of  this 
country  have  sense  enough  to  know  how 
much  they  have  been  abused,  and  to  discern 
the  artifices  and  delusions  which  have  been 
employed  to  disaffeet  their  minds  to  that 
free  Government,  in  the  preservation  of 
which  they  are  as  much  interested  i  s  we  are, 
and  which  has  been  assailed  for  tie  last 
forty  years  as  a  violation  of  their  rights — n(»t 
those  natural  and  imprescriptable  rights,  whii  h 
the  Constitution  holds  sacred,  but  Paine's  Rights 
of  Man.  It  is  under  the  delusion  of  his  doctrines 
that  the  British  Constitution  has  been  assail- 
ed   and  decried  for  the   last  forty  years.     Fie 


17 

derided  your  hereditary  Government,  and  foimd- 
ing  his  theory  on  the  Constitution  of  his  own 
country,  maintained  that  it  was  the  right  of 
men  to  govern  themselves.  If  you  will  analyze 
the  arguments  that  have  been  most  successful 
in  the  advocacy  of  this  measure  in  Parliament, 
you  will  find  that  they  resolve  themselves  into  a 
retail  of  Paine's  Rights  of  Man. 

The  Constitutional  settlement  of  1688  was  a 
settlement  consonant  with  justice;  and,  as  I  think 
I  have  proved,  not  violatory  of  the  rights  of  any 
man;  a  settlement  founded  on  wise  and  sound 
policy,  a^  best  calculated  to  maintain  the  Pro- 
testant Religion — the  Protestant  Institutions  of 
the  country, — the  Protestant  Church  Establish- 
ment,— and  the  exclusively  Protestant  succession 
of  the  Crown,  (which  it  is  now  proposed  to 
strengthen,  by  removing  Protestants  from  the 
Government  and  the  House  of  Commons,  in  or- 
der to  replace  them  by  Roman  Catholics,)  as 
liest  calculated  to  establish  unity  and  consistency 
in  the  councils  of  the  State,  and  the  proceedings 
of  the  legislature. 

The  measure  now  proposed,  professing  to  settle 
a  question,  suffer  me  to  say,  will,  in  my  opinion, 
settle  nothing  It  may,  and  will  reverse  a 
policy  which  we  have  adhered  to  for  260  years ; 
it  will  unsettle  mens'  minds, — it  will  unsettle  the 
Constitutional  settlement  of  1688, — it  will  destroy 
all  standard  of  Constitutional  sentiment  and 
opinion,  but  it  will  settle  nothing.  It  must  be 
considered  as  a  compromise  with  that  spirit  of 
radicalism  and  democracy,  supported  by  the  spirit 
of  party,  which  has  long  been  encroachiiig  upon 
our  Constitution,  and  threatening  it  in  all  its  parts 
and  proportions.  And  in  order  to  effect  this  com- 
promise, we  must  surrender  a  vital  part  of  our 
Constitution, — and  what   consideration   will  the 


IS 


nation  receive  for  that  siurender,  \r lieu  that  sur- 
render shall  have  be(ni  made?  I  ask,  will  not 
the  spirit  of  radicalism  and  democracy  subsist? 
Will  it  not  renew  its  assaults  on  our  Constitution 
with  increased  vi^jor,  and  an  ardor  renovated  from 
success?  And  will  not  the  same  spirit  of  party 
which  has  attbrded  countenance  and  encourage- 
ment to  all  the  assaults  on  om*  Constitution  for 
the  last  forty  years,  still  be  found  to  exist? 
And  I  would  ask,  when  these  assaults  shall  be 
renewed,  where  will  be  foun<l  the  principles,  or 
where  will  be  found  the  persons  on  which  andl>y 
whom  these  assaults  can   be  longer  resisted  ? 

I  do  therefore,  my  Lord,  look  with  apprehension 
and  dismay  to  the  measure  in  contemplation,  as 
directly  tending  to  the  downfall  of  the  British 
Constitution,  it  is  our  duty  however  to  use  our 
best  elForts  to  maintain  Hs  integrity.  I  shall 
therefore  now  conclude,  by  moving 

"  That  we  nre  of  opinion,  thiit  the  measure  contemplated  Is  uncalled  for 
by  any  necessity,  and  unjustifiable  by  any  sound  political  principle*  which 
Las  hitherto  directed  tlie  policy  of  ci\ilized  nations." 


X 


*".S 


;ftni^. 


•  7 


r- 


•x 


/J 


:f 


/\^ 


t 


I 


'•'X 


^ 


y 


